Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil Kumar Aggarwal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 April, 2010
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
CWP No.55 of 1990 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.55 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.4.2010
Sushil Kumar Aggarwal
......Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
-.-
Present: Ms. Avinash Mandla, Advocate
for Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition is filed with the allegation that petitioner is running the shop of Karyana within the municipal limit of Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. Respondents vide advertisement (Annexure P-4) dated Nil invited applications for the sale of plots in the New Grain Market, Shahbad Markanda. Respondents vide advertisement Annexure P-4 dated Nil informed that the sale of plots would be held on 2.9.1987 on the reserved price by draw of lots. As per the petitioner, he was having all the qualification and eligibility CWP No.55 of 1990 (O&M) -2- mentioned in the advertisement Annexure P-4 and application was submitted alongwith Demand Draft by the petitioner. Draw was held on 25.9.1987, however, application of the petitioner was rejected without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As per the petitioner, plots were allotted to some other persons who are not running any shop within the municipal limit of Shahbad Markanda and who did not fulfill the qualification laid down in the advertisement Annexure P-4.
2. On the applications of the petitioner, respondent No.4 tendered reply mentioning therein that the Booths were to be allotted only to those shopkeepers whose shops were situated in Inder Mandi and Partap Mandi. Since, petitioner's shop was not situated in either Inder Mandi or in Partap Mandi, hence, petitioner's name was not included in the draw. Allotment was made in favour of allottees by drawing the lots.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Admittedly, allotments were done by draw of lots in favour of certain persons and those allottees are not impleaded as respondents. In the event of allowing the writ petition, rights created in favour of the allottees shall be disturbed. In the absence of the allottees, present petition can not be entertained. Present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. Order 1 Rule 9 C.P.C. reads as under:-
"9. Mis-joinder and non-joinder - No suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may CWP No.55 of 1990 (O&M) -3- in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it:
Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party."
6. From the perusal of Order 1 Rule 9 C.P.C., it can safely be held that ordinarily no proceeding or suit shall be dismissed for mis-joinder or non-joinder of party, if lis can be decided in the absence of such party. However, proviso of Rule 9 provides that suit or proceeding shall be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party if, rights accrued in favour of necessary party are going to be adversely effected in the pending suit or proceeding. It is settled preposition of law that broad principles of code of civil procedure are applicable in the writ petition. Allotment in favour of allottees can not be challenged/quashed in the absence of allottees. 7 Hence, on the above said ground, writ petition is dismissed.
( ALOK SINGH ) th 26 April, 2010 JUDGE ashish